Prediction from the One‐Way Error Components Model with AR(1) Disturbances

In this paper we extend the works of Baillie and Baltagi (1999, in Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variables Models, Hsiao C et al. (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; 255–267) and generalize certain results from the Baltagi and Li (1992, Journal of Forecasting 11 : 561–567) paper accounting for AR(1) errors in the disturbance term. In particular, we derive six predictors for the one‐way error components model, as well as their associated asymptotic mean squared error of multi‐step prediction in the presence of AR(1) errors in the disturbance term. In addition, we also provide both theoretical and simulation evidence as to the relative efficiency of our alternative predictors. The adequacy of the prediction AMSE formula is also investigated by the use of Monte Carlo methods and indicates that the ordinary optimal predictor performs well for various accuracy criteria. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Duncan F. Gregory,William Walton and the development of British algebra: ‘algebraical geometry’, ‘geometrical algebra’, abstraction

This paper provides a detailed account of the period of the complex history of British algebra and geometry between the publication of George Peacock's Treatise on Algebra in 1830 and William Rowan Hamilton's paper on quaternions of 1843. During these years, Duncan Farquharson Gregory and William Walton published several contributions on ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ in the Cambridge Mathematical Journal. These contributions enabled them not only to generalize Peacock's symbolical algebra on the basis of geometrical considerations, but also to initiate the attempts to question the status of Euclidean space as the arbiter of valid geometrical interpretations. At the same time, Gregory and Walton were bound by the limits of symbolical algebra that they themselves made explicit; their work was not and could not be the ‘abstract algebra’ and ‘abstract geometry’ of figures such as Hamilton and Cayley. The central argument of the paper is that an understanding of the contributions to ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ of the second generation of ‘scientific’ symbolical algebraists is essential for a satisfactory explanation of the radical transition from symbolical to abstract algebra that took place in British mathematics in the 1830s–1840s.